Tulsa

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1145th
  Defense+0.2210th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense41.1%39th
  Defense43.7%30th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2650th
  Defense+1.435th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0844th
  Defense+0.1622nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2964th
  Defense+0.387th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%27th
  Defense50.4%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%57th
  Defense28.3%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1760th
  Defense3.1243rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.5%87th
  Defense17.4%53rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%38th
  Defense14.4%13th

Percentiles among the 133 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2023

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Tulsa allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   UAPB
2. L
   WASH
3. L
   OU
4. W
   NIU
5. W
   TEM
6. L
   FAU
7. L
   RICE
8. L
   SMU
9. L
   CLT
10. L
    TULN
11. L
    UNT
12. W
    ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2023

1. Kirk FrancisQB131 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 113th of 250 QBs
   0.70WAR0.40 to 0.99
2. Cardell WilliamsQB113 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 130th of 250 QBs
   0.49WAR0.21 to 0.77
3. Anthony WatkinsRB157 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 71st of 383 RBs
   0.30WAR0.17 to 0.42
4. Kamdyn BenjaminWR60 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 22nd of 457 WRs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.43
5. Braylon BraxtonQB64 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 176th of 250 QBs
   0.24WAR0.10 to 0.38
6. Angus DaviesP39 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 46th of 103 punters
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.18
7. Chase MeyerPK17 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 53rd of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
8. Bill JacksonRB49 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 248th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Tulsa's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52052083rd of 130Roster talent: 520, 83rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  116116115th of 130Recruiting: 116, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%111th of 128Returning production: 26%, 111th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.7−13.7111th of 130SP+ rating: −13.7, 111th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2023

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Tulsa's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.15 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at NIUQ4 4:50 4th & 3 at NIU 4, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs TEMQ3 8:21 4th & 1 at TEM 8, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at NIUQ4 2:09 4th & 1 at NIU 49, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at NIUQ2 0:26 4th & 13 at NIU 40, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
5. at NIUQ3 9:33 4th & 4 at NIU 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at NIUQ3 4:07 4th & 3 at TLSA 28, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs OUQ3 9:54 4th & 2 at OU 2, down 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at ECUQ4 6:50 4th & 6 at TLSA 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

74th of 133 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Tulsa's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UAPB
2. L

   WASH
3. L

   OU
4. W

   NIU
5. W

   TEM
6. L

   FAU
7. L

   RICE
8. L

   SMU
9. L

   CLT
10. L

    TULN
11. L

    UNT
12. W

    ECU

What moved it, 2023

Every game starts at Tulsa's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.12
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.38

Game by game

• UAPBW 42-7 vs UAPB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WASHL 10-43 at WASH2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• OUL 17-66 vs OU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• NIUW 22-14 at NIU33% → 97%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4
• TEMW 48-26 vs TEM48% → 100%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +1
• FAUL 17-20 at FAU37% → 4%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• RICEL 10-42 vs RICE53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• SMUL 10-69 at SMU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −10
• CLTL 26-33 vs CLT64% → 51%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −10, Clock −2
• TULNL 22-24 at TULN5% → 5%Before kickoff −45 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• UNTL 28-35 vs UNT40% → 4%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• ECUW 29-27 at ECU38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Tulsa's side.

Closest call

UTSA 45-46 TLSA (2024) - Tulsa dropped to a 1.6% win probability before pulling it out.